John Warner wants Congress to pass legislation designed to curb climate change.
But instead of arguing on moral grounds — as many environmentalists do — the former Virginia senator is relying on what he knows the best: the military and the economy.
"China and India and the rest of the nations in the world are going to eat our lunch," if the United States doesn't swiftly react to climate change, he said.
Warner, who appeared at a climate change conference with scientists, politicians, and military brass on Tuesday in Norfolk, spoke with the Daily Press earlier that morning.
He said climate change is interlocked with national security and energy dependence, and that the United States needs to reduce its reliance on foreign oil.
Warner, who steered thousands of defense jobs to Hampton Roads during his career, said the nation needs to invest in solar and wind energy, nuclear power, and clean coal technology.
"This is a huge, huge, jobs opportunity," said Warner, who is working with Pew Charitable Trusts, a nonprofit organization that focuses on environmental issues.
The former GOP lawmaker, who did not seek re-election in 2008, called on Congress to pass climate change legislation. The House approved a bill earlier this summer; but the Senate, mired in a debate over health care, has yet to act.
By not doing so, the United States puts its armed forces at risk, Warner said. For example, the military is typically among the first to respond to natural disasters, such as tsunamis or hurricanes, associated with climate change.
"These young men and women in uniform are taking the risks," Warner said.
He was joined Tuesday by John B. Nathman, a retired Navy admiral who, like Warner, said climate change impacts the military.
For example, droughts in Africa have caused food and water shortages. This poses a threat to unstable governments such as Somalia and Kenya, where the U.S. and its allies have a military presence, he said.
Asked if the war in Iraq is the result of climate change manifesting itself, Nathman said "it's hard to say."
Having the admiral and Warner, a respected voice in defense issues, involved in the climate change debate illustrates how far the issue has advanced, said Phyllis Cuttino, director of Pew Environment Group's U.S. Global Warming Campaign.
Warner sponsored climate change legislation in 2007 that ultimately failed to make it through Congress.
The effort, like the current legislation, faced opposition from the power, manufacturing, and transportation industries.
Plus, he said the Bush administration "simply wasn't going to take this battle on."
Warner said he is encouraged so far by President Barack Obama, who made climate change legislation part of his election platform. Still, Warner said Obama needs help from Congress to make climate change legislation a reality.
"We've got to get Congress and the President working together," he said
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Noted lecturers grapple with water, 'the uncertain resource'
On Tuesday morning I drove south on highway 169 through a thick rain and the car wash-spray of semis, following the Minnesota River south to St. Peter. Even with water puddling in the ditches, the Minnesota remains a piddly remnant of the boiling, gouging glacial river that carved this valley out. All that water is still out there, somewhere on the earth, but never has it been so desired, so sought after, so precious.
The biological holy trinity — hydrogen-oxygen-hydrogen — is the subject of this year's Nobel Conference at Gustavus Adolphus College in St. Peter. "H20, Uncertain Resource," Oct. 6-7, includes lectures from six highly credentialed speakers.
The loftiest of these is perhaps R.K. Pachauri, the current chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the organization that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore. With doctoral degrees in industrial engineering and economics, Pachauri is credited with playing a major role in laying the groundwork for the Kyoto Protocol
The biological holy trinity — hydrogen-oxygen-hydrogen — is the subject of this year's Nobel Conference at Gustavus Adolphus College in St. Peter. "H20, Uncertain Resource," Oct. 6-7, includes lectures from six highly credentialed speakers.
The loftiest of these is perhaps R.K. Pachauri, the current chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the organization that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore. With doctoral degrees in industrial engineering and economics, Pachauri is credited with playing a major role in laying the groundwork for the Kyoto Protocol
But how does Pachauri's expertise in climate change make him qualified to talk about water?
"It's certainly no coincidence that whenever civilizations and human activity began, it is essentially because of access to water," Pachauri explained at the start of his address. "And it's also no coincidence that those societies which ran into problems in the management of their water resources — all had to encounter natural debacles that led to the depletion or vanishing of water resources — are the societies that actually failed."
Yes, but hasn't modern technology and science changed all that? It did for a while, perhaps, but two factors are changing how we humans relate to water: Continued population growth means there are more of us than ever who need it; and global climate change is making water, as the Nobel conference title says, an uncertain resource.
"It's not just a smooth and steady increase in temperatures that climate change brings with it," Pachauri noted. "It also brings a major disruption for the entire climate system, as a result of which several extreme events are increasing both in frequency and intensity." Extreme weather might be good for the Weather Channel, but it won't be good for the people living through it, particularly for those already living in marginal conditions due to poverty or their geographical location.
As Pachauri described it, climate change promises more of everything: heavier rains bringing more flooding; in other areas more severe droughts; more severe typhoons and hurricanes whose power will be augmented by rising sea levels. Other changes will be slow, but no less violent in the long run. The glaciers of the Himalayas are the water cooler for 750 million people living in China and Asia, including Pachauri's native India. But these glaciers are melting away at an alarming rate, and when they're gone there will be a lot of thirsty people on the move.
If you've read up on the implications of climate change, Pachauri's presentation might have only come as an impassioned reminder of what could be waiting for us. And Pachauri doesn't think we'll have to wait very long. "This is not something that is going to happen two generations from now," Pachauri cautioned the audience. "It is likely that major changes will take place in the next 10 to 20 years." And that's why he sees the here-and-now as crunch time.
"I've said this before: The next two or three years are going to be crucial to what's going to happen, to what's going to define the future," Pachauri said.
Pachauri fielded a question from the Internet that seemed to point to North America's cool summer as proof that global warming is anything but.
"Well, the point is, look: The IPCC and anyone who is researching on climate change is not in the business of predicting weather," Pachauri responded. "Weather prediction is totally distinct from changes in the climate. The weather will change. Just because you have one cool summer or one cool winter doesn't mean that climate change has gone away."
The dead zones
Dr. Nancy Rabalais was the day's second presenter. As executive director and professor of the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium (LUMCON), Rabalais has spent her career studying the Mississippi delta ecosystem (all of it provided courtesy of Midwestern topsoil).
Rabalais began her lecture by asking, "What is the second most pressing issue on a global scale other than carbon?" The answer, she explained, is nitrogen, and also phosphorus. Each of these is a critical nutrient for life forms, but they are also key players in the "dead zones" that are appearing each spring and summer in areas along the Louisiana coast.
As Rabalais explains it, the story of excess nutrients in the Gulf is one of too much of a good thing. "The beneficial parts [of nitrogen and phosphorus] are that they increase phytoplankton, which is good — it feeds the marine food web," she explained. "It also generates more zooplankton, which feed more fish, and we can have some tremendous fisheries in coastal areas offshore of large rivers where a lot of nutrients are entered into the coastal watershed."
But too much nutrients can lead to the growth of filamentous algae, which choke out the sunlight that powers the sea grass beds which are critical to the survival of younger fish. And as Rabalais explained it, when large amounts of nitrogen-fueled phytoplankton die and sink to the bottom, bacteria feed on them and in the process use up all of the available oxygen. A dead zone is created, where nothing lives. Fish will swim out of these areas if possible, but if they happened to be trapped in one, they'll die. The size of this annual dead zone is growing, and the most recent one covered an area the distance from Des Moines to Chicago. So who is responsible for all this excess nutrients?
Rabalais is an intelligent woman, she knows she's the Nobel Conference is in the middle of farm country, but she tells it like it is: The biggest culprit is the agricultural use of fertilizers. In particular, tiles buried in order to better drain wet cropland have made it easier than ever for fertilizers to leave the farm and enter the watershed. The pie graph speaks!
Farm fertilizers may be the major contributor, but the problem is further complicated by a Mississippi River watershed that has been engineered not to flood. Flooding had the effect of spreading nutrients back up onto the land and into the soil; but levees keep the floodwaters at bay, whisking the nitrogen-rich water down to the delta.
Rabalais closed her lecture by discussing various initiatives she's been involved with that have sought to limit the amount of fertilizer making it into out watersheds. All have been voluntary in nature, and by her description they've been disappointingly ineffectual. The dead zones continue to grow, and worse yet, many of the changes of global warming — sea level rise, increased winds, increased temperature, increased flows from heavier runoffs — all seem to have a positive feedback on the bottom low-oxygen phenomenon.
So the question is, can we have our record corn and soybean yields, and our gulf shrimp, too? There must be a way. Let's be selfish and ask the question, whom do we want to be feeding? These oxygen-sucking bacteria, or ourselves?
Confessions of a wastewater chemist
Dr. David Sedlak is a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California, Berkeley. He's an expert on the chemistry and toxicology of the human waste stream.
For most of human civilization, humans have used water for personal and agricultural purposes and then sent it down river. This approach worked well under two conditions: There was always a new supply of fresh water to replace the water you dirtied (i.e. no one was living upstream from you, and/or you were living in non-arid climate), and there was no one living downstream who was capable of stopping you.
In an increasingly crowded world, neither of those conditions can be met. According to Sedlak, cities like Los Angeles and New York City spend huge amounts of money on the infrastructure to secure the 4 billion liters of potable water their system needs every day. "New York City acts as a landlord in the area where it gets water," Sedlak explained, referring to the power the city must use to protect and manage the two upstate watersheds it draws its water from. Of course LA's water-thirsty tentacles stretch much farther. According to Sedlak, relatively newer big cities like Denver, Dallas, and Atlanta have arrived late to the water rights game, and so they find their growth potential stunted by the lack of water.
"Where can rapidly growing cities find more water?" Sedlak asked the conference attendees. "They can drink out of the toilet," he suggested, drawing a mix of laughter and "oooh" from the audience. But Sedlak was serious. In the future, more and more of the water we drink will go from the toilet bowl to the tap — not directly, of course. Cities like LA and Singapore are already doing it.
Whether it's Singapore or St. Peter, all sewage first must go through the same standard treatment to remove suspended solids, ammonia and organic carbon. At this point, the wastewater is called "effluent."
"It doesn't look like that brown sewage that came in," Sedlak told conference-goers. "It looks pretty good. It looks like surface water that you take out of a river."
And for many communities, that's where the effluent goes: into the river. Somewhere downstream that water is pulled out, treated, and put into the drinking water system. Depending on a variety of factors, some rivers are in fact mostly effluent. Sedlak pointed to the Trinity River between Dallas and Houston as an example of what he called an "effluent-dominated ecosystem." By the time the Trinity reaches the Gulf of Mexico, it is 90 percent effluent.
'If it tastes good, drink it'
The idea of drinking someone else's treated sewage may take your thirst away, but it doesn't scare Sedlak. "If it tastes good, drink it — it's probably safer than some of the foods you eat," he counseled. Sedlak should know: The focus of his work has been to study the myriad of chemicals — antibiotics, blood-pressure medications, steroids, household chemicals, etc., — that continue to taint our drinking water. That's because they're not removed by the treatment of raw sewage or by the process that makes effluent drinkable. These are the chemicals like the birth-control-pill hormones that have been turning some male fish into sterile intersex (both male and female) fish.
As Sedlak's most recent research has shown, river systems are pretty good at breaking down these chemicals, either by bacteria or by exposure to natural ultraviolet light. Currently, energy-intensive technology like reverse osmosis and treatment with artificial UV light is being used to eliminate these man-made contaminants. Sedlak's goal is find more natural, low-energy systems that can do the same work but at a lower financial and ecological cost.
Dr. Craig Bowron
"It's certainly no coincidence that whenever civilizations and human activity began, it is essentially because of access to water," Pachauri explained at the start of his address. "And it's also no coincidence that those societies which ran into problems in the management of their water resources — all had to encounter natural debacles that led to the depletion or vanishing of water resources — are the societies that actually failed."
Yes, but hasn't modern technology and science changed all that? It did for a while, perhaps, but two factors are changing how we humans relate to water: Continued population growth means there are more of us than ever who need it; and global climate change is making water, as the Nobel conference title says, an uncertain resource.
"It's not just a smooth and steady increase in temperatures that climate change brings with it," Pachauri noted. "It also brings a major disruption for the entire climate system, as a result of which several extreme events are increasing both in frequency and intensity." Extreme weather might be good for the Weather Channel, but it won't be good for the people living through it, particularly for those already living in marginal conditions due to poverty or their geographical location.
As Pachauri described it, climate change promises more of everything: heavier rains bringing more flooding; in other areas more severe droughts; more severe typhoons and hurricanes whose power will be augmented by rising sea levels. Other changes will be slow, but no less violent in the long run. The glaciers of the Himalayas are the water cooler for 750 million people living in China and Asia, including Pachauri's native India. But these glaciers are melting away at an alarming rate, and when they're gone there will be a lot of thirsty people on the move.
If you've read up on the implications of climate change, Pachauri's presentation might have only come as an impassioned reminder of what could be waiting for us. And Pachauri doesn't think we'll have to wait very long. "This is not something that is going to happen two generations from now," Pachauri cautioned the audience. "It is likely that major changes will take place in the next 10 to 20 years." And that's why he sees the here-and-now as crunch time.
"I've said this before: The next two or three years are going to be crucial to what's going to happen, to what's going to define the future," Pachauri said.
Pachauri fielded a question from the Internet that seemed to point to North America's cool summer as proof that global warming is anything but.
"Well, the point is, look: The IPCC and anyone who is researching on climate change is not in the business of predicting weather," Pachauri responded. "Weather prediction is totally distinct from changes in the climate. The weather will change. Just because you have one cool summer or one cool winter doesn't mean that climate change has gone away."
The dead zones
Dr. Nancy Rabalais was the day's second presenter. As executive director and professor of the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium (LUMCON), Rabalais has spent her career studying the Mississippi delta ecosystem (all of it provided courtesy of Midwestern topsoil).
Rabalais began her lecture by asking, "What is the second most pressing issue on a global scale other than carbon?" The answer, she explained, is nitrogen, and also phosphorus. Each of these is a critical nutrient for life forms, but they are also key players in the "dead zones" that are appearing each spring and summer in areas along the Louisiana coast.
As Rabalais explains it, the story of excess nutrients in the Gulf is one of too much of a good thing. "The beneficial parts [of nitrogen and phosphorus] are that they increase phytoplankton, which is good — it feeds the marine food web," she explained. "It also generates more zooplankton, which feed more fish, and we can have some tremendous fisheries in coastal areas offshore of large rivers where a lot of nutrients are entered into the coastal watershed."
But too much nutrients can lead to the growth of filamentous algae, which choke out the sunlight that powers the sea grass beds which are critical to the survival of younger fish. And as Rabalais explained it, when large amounts of nitrogen-fueled phytoplankton die and sink to the bottom, bacteria feed on them and in the process use up all of the available oxygen. A dead zone is created, where nothing lives. Fish will swim out of these areas if possible, but if they happened to be trapped in one, they'll die. The size of this annual dead zone is growing, and the most recent one covered an area the distance from Des Moines to Chicago. So who is responsible for all this excess nutrients?
Rabalais is an intelligent woman, she knows she's the Nobel Conference is in the middle of farm country, but she tells it like it is: The biggest culprit is the agricultural use of fertilizers. In particular, tiles buried in order to better drain wet cropland have made it easier than ever for fertilizers to leave the farm and enter the watershed. The pie graph speaks!
Farm fertilizers may be the major contributor, but the problem is further complicated by a Mississippi River watershed that has been engineered not to flood. Flooding had the effect of spreading nutrients back up onto the land and into the soil; but levees keep the floodwaters at bay, whisking the nitrogen-rich water down to the delta.
Rabalais closed her lecture by discussing various initiatives she's been involved with that have sought to limit the amount of fertilizer making it into out watersheds. All have been voluntary in nature, and by her description they've been disappointingly ineffectual. The dead zones continue to grow, and worse yet, many of the changes of global warming — sea level rise, increased winds, increased temperature, increased flows from heavier runoffs — all seem to have a positive feedback on the bottom low-oxygen phenomenon.
So the question is, can we have our record corn and soybean yields, and our gulf shrimp, too? There must be a way. Let's be selfish and ask the question, whom do we want to be feeding? These oxygen-sucking bacteria, or ourselves?
Confessions of a wastewater chemist
Dr. David Sedlak is a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California, Berkeley. He's an expert on the chemistry and toxicology of the human waste stream.
For most of human civilization, humans have used water for personal and agricultural purposes and then sent it down river. This approach worked well under two conditions: There was always a new supply of fresh water to replace the water you dirtied (i.e. no one was living upstream from you, and/or you were living in non-arid climate), and there was no one living downstream who was capable of stopping you.
In an increasingly crowded world, neither of those conditions can be met. According to Sedlak, cities like Los Angeles and New York City spend huge amounts of money on the infrastructure to secure the 4 billion liters of potable water their system needs every day. "New York City acts as a landlord in the area where it gets water," Sedlak explained, referring to the power the city must use to protect and manage the two upstate watersheds it draws its water from. Of course LA's water-thirsty tentacles stretch much farther. According to Sedlak, relatively newer big cities like Denver, Dallas, and Atlanta have arrived late to the water rights game, and so they find their growth potential stunted by the lack of water.
"Where can rapidly growing cities find more water?" Sedlak asked the conference attendees. "They can drink out of the toilet," he suggested, drawing a mix of laughter and "oooh" from the audience. But Sedlak was serious. In the future, more and more of the water we drink will go from the toilet bowl to the tap — not directly, of course. Cities like LA and Singapore are already doing it.
Whether it's Singapore or St. Peter, all sewage first must go through the same standard treatment to remove suspended solids, ammonia and organic carbon. At this point, the wastewater is called "effluent."
"It doesn't look like that brown sewage that came in," Sedlak told conference-goers. "It looks pretty good. It looks like surface water that you take out of a river."
And for many communities, that's where the effluent goes: into the river. Somewhere downstream that water is pulled out, treated, and put into the drinking water system. Depending on a variety of factors, some rivers are in fact mostly effluent. Sedlak pointed to the Trinity River between Dallas and Houston as an example of what he called an "effluent-dominated ecosystem." By the time the Trinity reaches the Gulf of Mexico, it is 90 percent effluent.
'If it tastes good, drink it'
The idea of drinking someone else's treated sewage may take your thirst away, but it doesn't scare Sedlak. "If it tastes good, drink it — it's probably safer than some of the foods you eat," he counseled. Sedlak should know: The focus of his work has been to study the myriad of chemicals — antibiotics, blood-pressure medications, steroids, household chemicals, etc., — that continue to taint our drinking water. That's because they're not removed by the treatment of raw sewage or by the process that makes effluent drinkable. These are the chemicals like the birth-control-pill hormones that have been turning some male fish into sterile intersex (both male and female) fish.
As Sedlak's most recent research has shown, river systems are pretty good at breaking down these chemicals, either by bacteria or by exposure to natural ultraviolet light. Currently, energy-intensive technology like reverse osmosis and treatment with artificial UV light is being used to eliminate these man-made contaminants. Sedlak's goal is find more natural, low-energy systems that can do the same work but at a lower financial and ecological cost.
Dr. Craig Bowron
The Kelley Blue Book on Climate Change
Whenever anyone buys or sells a car in America, they are likely to settle on a price as listed in the Kelly Blue Book, the authoritative final word on automobile value since 1926.
When you go to the doctor with an illness, your physician is likely to have the Merck Manual on her bookshelf. The Merck Manual was first published in 1899 as an important medical authoritative reference guide and aid to physicians and pharmacists. "By the 1980s, the book had become the world's largest selling medical text and was translated into more than a dozen languages."
And if your physician prescribes you a medication, chances are she has read about it in her Physicians' Desk Reference (PDR), "designed to provide physicians with the full legally mandated information relevant to writing prescriptions" and "a commercially published compilation of manufacturers' prescribing information on prescription drugs, updated annually" for 63 years.
If an article appears in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), it is treated with great respect by the media and the world at large as an important statement related to health or medical care. It carries with it the weight and import of serious authority in its field, as it should. When it comes to cars, refrigerators, solar panels, guns, sports statistics, farm tractors, or almost anything else, there is a gold standard. There is an ultimate final word, a publication or an organization that is trusted by those within and outside the field as representing what is known or accepted as substantially true.
So it is with any scientific issue, including global warming or climate change, For example, there is Nature, "the world's most highly cited interdisciplinary science journal, according to the 2008 Journal Citation Report." A British publication which began in 1869, Nature is one of two of the most important science journals published in the world.
The other is Science, published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
The other is Science, published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
Founded in 1880 on $10,000 of seed money from the American inventor Thomas Edison, Science has grown to become the world's leading outlet for scientific news, commentary, and cutting-edge research, with the largest paid circulation of any peer-reviewed general-science journal. Through its print and online incarnations, Science reaches an estimated worldwide readership of more than one million."What do Nature and Science say about global warming or climate change?
Back in February of 2007, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published their fourth report in 17 years which again definitively stated that humans are causing global warming, an editorial from Nature stated:
Until quite recently (perhaps even until last week), the general global narrative of the great climate-change debate has been deceptively straightforward. The climate-science community, together with the entire environmental movement and a broad alliance of opinion leaders ranging from Greenpeace and Ralph Nader to Senator John McCain and many US evangelical Christians, has been advocating meaningful action to curtail greenhouse-gas emissions. This requirement has been disputed by a collection of money-men and some isolated scientists, in alliance with the current president of the United States and a handful of like-minded ideologues such as Australia's prime minister John Howard."
The IPCC report, released in Paris, has served a useful purpose in removing the last ground from under the climate-change sceptics' feet, leaving them looking marooned and ridiculous."
However, this predicament was already clear enough. Opinion in business circles, in particular, has moved on. A report released on 19 January by Citigroup, Climatic Consequences -- the sort of eloquently written, big-picture stuff that the well-informed chief executive reads on a Sunday afternoon -- states even more firmly than the IPCC that anthropogenic climate change is a fact that world governments are moving to confront. It leaves no question at all that large businesses need to get to grips with this situation -- something that many of them are already doing."That same month the AAAS Board released their "New Statement on Climate Change."
The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society. Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects: rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species ranges, and more. The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now."
The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, a critical greenhouse gas, is higher than it has been for at least 650,000 years. The average temperature of the Earth is heading for levels not experienced for millions of years. Scientific predictions of the impacts of increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels and deforestation match observed changes."
As expected, intensification of droughts, heat waves, floods, wildfires, and severe storms is occurring, with a mounting toll on vulnerable ecosystems and societies. These events are early warning signs of even more devastating damage to come, some of which will be irreversible."
Delaying action to address climate change will increase the environmental and societal consequences as well as the costs. The longer we wait to tackle climate change, the harder and more expensive the task will be."
History provides many examples of society confronting grave threats by mobilizing knowledge and promoting innovation. We need an aggressive research, development and deployment effort to transform the existing and future energy systems of the world away from technologies that emit greenhouse gases."
Developing clean energy technologies will provide economic opportunities and ensure future energy supplies. In addition to rapidly reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it is essential that we develop strategies to adapt to ongoing changes and make communities more resilient to future changes."
The growing torrent of information presents a clear message: we are already experiencing global climate change. It is time to muster the political will for concerted action. Stronger leadership at all levels is needed. The time is now. We must rise to the challenge. We owe this to future generations
U.S. economy could worsen climate bill prospects
Global warming legislation, already facing difficult odds in the U.S. Senate, looks even tougher to achieve because key lawmakers fear taking big steps on the environment when the economy is still shedding jobs.
"I think standing in a deep economic hole is a difficult time to do big policy things that cause uncertainty," said Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan.
Dorgan, who is up for re-election next year, is one of a few dozen undecided senators who will be courted by Democratic leaders seeking support for a bill to reduce industrial emissions of carbon dioxide, which are blamed for climate change.
On Friday, White House climate and energy coordinator Carol Browner predicted President Barack Obama was unlikely to sign a bill fighting global warming before a U.N. global warming conference in Copenhagen in December.
That would significantly reduce the chances of striking a meaningful deal in Denmark to fight global warming, as other industrialized countries are following the U.S. lead.
U.S. climate legislation is being attacked from many sides and work has slowed in the Senate because of Congress' preoccupation with healthcare reform legislation.
With unemployment at a 26-year high, economic concerns are gnawing at some Senate moderates, even though the climate bill's supporters say it will actually create millions of "green" jobs over the long-term and have little impact on consumer energy prices.
Like Dorgan, fellow Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln has embraced the need for reducing carbon emissions that scientists say are causing global droughts, flooding and the spread of disease.
But Lincoln also faces voters in the November 2010 elections and has been hinting recently at the need for more modest legislation, such as just encouraging expanded use of alternative fuels, without mandating carbon reductions.
"In this economy, it is important to take it one step at a time," Lincoln said last month.
JOBLESS RATE
Private economists predict the U.S. jobless rate will soon surpass 10 percent and recede only grudgingly during the second half of 2010, dashing hopes of a fast economic turnaround.
And that is emboldening those who opposed climate change legislation even during vibrant economic times.
A full-page ad in Sunday's Washington Post paid for by Energy Citizens, an offshoot of the American Petroleum Institute and other industry groups, pictured a worker with the words "2 million jobs lost" emblazoned across his chest.
Not to be outdone, House Republican leader John Boehner said on Monday, "The American people are asking, 'Where are the jobs?'" adding that cap-and-trade climate bills Democrats are pushing "will raise energy costs and also cost us 2.5 million jobs a year each and every year over the next decade."
Even if worries about the economy do not kill the climate bill in the Senate, they could weaken its goals for cutting carbon emissions.
"A weak economy -- especially in the heartland -- helps the argument that the 14 percent target (for carbon reductions) may be a bigger vote-getter than 20 percent or even 17 percent," according to an analysis by Robert W. Baird and Co., an international financial services firm.
For all the negative talk about climate legislation prospects, some still see chances for some kind of progress this year, building on June's passage of a bill in the House of Representatives.
They point to Wall Street's eagerness for what could become a gigantic, lucrative market in carbon trading; growing business support, as evidenced by some major companies taking the unusual step of quitting the U.S. Chamber of Commerce because of its active opposition to climate legislation; and public support for growing the ailing U.S. manufacturing base with solar, wind power and other new energy technologies.
"I think standing in a deep economic hole is a difficult time to do big policy things that cause uncertainty," said Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan.
Dorgan, who is up for re-election next year, is one of a few dozen undecided senators who will be courted by Democratic leaders seeking support for a bill to reduce industrial emissions of carbon dioxide, which are blamed for climate change.
On Friday, White House climate and energy coordinator Carol Browner predicted President Barack Obama was unlikely to sign a bill fighting global warming before a U.N. global warming conference in Copenhagen in December.
That would significantly reduce the chances of striking a meaningful deal in Denmark to fight global warming, as other industrialized countries are following the U.S. lead.
U.S. climate legislation is being attacked from many sides and work has slowed in the Senate because of Congress' preoccupation with healthcare reform legislation.
With unemployment at a 26-year high, economic concerns are gnawing at some Senate moderates, even though the climate bill's supporters say it will actually create millions of "green" jobs over the long-term and have little impact on consumer energy prices.
Like Dorgan, fellow Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln has embraced the need for reducing carbon emissions that scientists say are causing global droughts, flooding and the spread of disease.
But Lincoln also faces voters in the November 2010 elections and has been hinting recently at the need for more modest legislation, such as just encouraging expanded use of alternative fuels, without mandating carbon reductions.
"In this economy, it is important to take it one step at a time," Lincoln said last month.
JOBLESS RATE
Private economists predict the U.S. jobless rate will soon surpass 10 percent and recede only grudgingly during the second half of 2010, dashing hopes of a fast economic turnaround.
And that is emboldening those who opposed climate change legislation even during vibrant economic times.
A full-page ad in Sunday's Washington Post paid for by Energy Citizens, an offshoot of the American Petroleum Institute and other industry groups, pictured a worker with the words "2 million jobs lost" emblazoned across his chest.
Not to be outdone, House Republican leader John Boehner said on Monday, "The American people are asking, 'Where are the jobs?'" adding that cap-and-trade climate bills Democrats are pushing "will raise energy costs and also cost us 2.5 million jobs a year each and every year over the next decade."
Even if worries about the economy do not kill the climate bill in the Senate, they could weaken its goals for cutting carbon emissions.
"A weak economy -- especially in the heartland -- helps the argument that the 14 percent target (for carbon reductions) may be a bigger vote-getter than 20 percent or even 17 percent," according to an analysis by Robert W. Baird and Co., an international financial services firm.
For all the negative talk about climate legislation prospects, some still see chances for some kind of progress this year, building on June's passage of a bill in the House of Representatives.
They point to Wall Street's eagerness for what could become a gigantic, lucrative market in carbon trading; growing business support, as evidenced by some major companies taking the unusual step of quitting the U.S. Chamber of Commerce because of its active opposition to climate legislation; and public support for growing the ailing U.S. manufacturing base with solar, wind power and other new energy technologies.
Green group says U.S. climate bill won't hurt farms
Global warming poses more of a threat to U.S. farm incomes than does the climate change bill passed by the U.S. House, which will have a "negligible" impact on American agriculture's bottom line, an environmental group said on Wednesday.
"A more careful examination of the facts shows that climate change itself, not climate legislation, is the real threat to American agriculture, and that climate-induced crop losses will cost US taxpayers and farmers far more than could ever be caused by the (House) bill," the Environmental Working Group (EWG) said in its report.
Legislation introduced last week in the Senate aims for a 20 percent reduction in smokestack emissions by 2020 from 2005 levels. A bill that narrowly passed the House in June calls for a 17 percent cut by 2020 in pollution from utilities, manufacturers and oil refineries -- industries blamed for global warming.
The American Farm Bureau Federation has warned that the House and Senate bills will drive up sharply the cost of farm fuel, fertilizer and pesticides.
But the EWG report said cost increases -- such as higher expenses to produce crops -- resulting from the climate change bill passed "are so small they would be lost in the background noise" of changes to farm income caused by routine fluctuations in yield, crop prices and input costs.
Furthermore, EWG said farmers stand to lose more from weather patterns, such as flooding, drought or higher temperatures, caused by global warming.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has said the House climate bill would increase farm expenses by $700 million, or 0.3 percent, from 2012-18. That would be offset by revenue from a carbon offset market, estimated by USDA at $1 billion a year in the near term and $15 billion in 2040.
The American Farm Bureau Federation said the House and Senate bills put "us at a competitive disadvantage in international markets with other countries that do not have similar carbon emission restrictions," AFBF President Bob Stallman said last week. "For the future prosperity of the U.S. economy and American agriculture, climate change legislation must be defeated by Congress."
"A more careful examination of the facts shows that climate change itself, not climate legislation, is the real threat to American agriculture, and that climate-induced crop losses will cost US taxpayers and farmers far more than could ever be caused by the (House) bill," the Environmental Working Group (EWG) said in its report.
Legislation introduced last week in the Senate aims for a 20 percent reduction in smokestack emissions by 2020 from 2005 levels. A bill that narrowly passed the House in June calls for a 17 percent cut by 2020 in pollution from utilities, manufacturers and oil refineries -- industries blamed for global warming.
The American Farm Bureau Federation has warned that the House and Senate bills will drive up sharply the cost of farm fuel, fertilizer and pesticides.
But the EWG report said cost increases -- such as higher expenses to produce crops -- resulting from the climate change bill passed "are so small they would be lost in the background noise" of changes to farm income caused by routine fluctuations in yield, crop prices and input costs.
Furthermore, EWG said farmers stand to lose more from weather patterns, such as flooding, drought or higher temperatures, caused by global warming.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has said the House climate bill would increase farm expenses by $700 million, or 0.3 percent, from 2012-18. That would be offset by revenue from a carbon offset market, estimated by USDA at $1 billion a year in the near term and $15 billion in 2040.
The American Farm Bureau Federation said the House and Senate bills put "us at a competitive disadvantage in international markets with other countries that do not have similar carbon emission restrictions," AFBF President Bob Stallman said last week. "For the future prosperity of the U.S. economy and American agriculture, climate change legislation must be defeated by Congress."
U.S. Chamber of Commerce feels the heat
Companies are fleeing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as though the association had the plague. PG&E, Exelon, PNM Resources, Apple - and this is all within the past two weeks. If the chamber keeps up its fierce opposition to climate change legislation, the defections should continue.
According to a statement from chamber President Thomas Donohue, the chamber supports "strong federal legislation and a binding international agreement to reduce carbon emissions and address climate change." But the chamber vociferously opposes the Waxman-Markey climate change bill and it's challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The chamber is woefully, even cynically, undercutting its rhetoric with its actions.
And a handful of high-profile businesses have had enough of it. They figure that new legislation and regulation is coming, and it would be best to be cooperative, not contrary. In the long term, some of them may even benefit from the changes. Maybe, like Apple, they're less worried about legislation in the United States because they do much of their manufacturing overseas. And surely the defectors don't mind a bit of good press, either.
Whatever. Even if the defectors aren't leaving the chamber solely out of their environmental concern, their choice still represents a remarkable turn in the national debate. It means that public concern with climate change is finally starting to affect business practices - and hopefully, voting practices. Nike, which just resigned its place on the chamber's board of directors, said that it was concerned about how it would look to its young customers, who are passionate about addressing a threat to the planet. That's got to send shudders through Congress, as well it should. Ultimately, if the country's going to change, consumers and taxpayers are going to have to turn up the heat.
R
According to a statement from chamber President Thomas Donohue, the chamber supports "strong federal legislation and a binding international agreement to reduce carbon emissions and address climate change." But the chamber vociferously opposes the Waxman-Markey climate change bill and it's challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The chamber is woefully, even cynically, undercutting its rhetoric with its actions.
And a handful of high-profile businesses have had enough of it. They figure that new legislation and regulation is coming, and it would be best to be cooperative, not contrary. In the long term, some of them may even benefit from the changes. Maybe, like Apple, they're less worried about legislation in the United States because they do much of their manufacturing overseas. And surely the defectors don't mind a bit of good press, either.
Whatever. Even if the defectors aren't leaving the chamber solely out of their environmental concern, their choice still represents a remarkable turn in the national debate. It means that public concern with climate change is finally starting to affect business practices - and hopefully, voting practices. Nike, which just resigned its place on the chamber's board of directors, said that it was concerned about how it would look to its young customers, who are passionate about addressing a threat to the planet. That's got to send shudders through Congress, as well it should. Ultimately, if the country's going to change, consumers and taxpayers are going to have to turn up the heat.
R
48 ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS RECEIVE 2009 TOGETHERGREEN INNOVATION GRANTS
Forty eight projects in 23 states will receive a total of $1.1 million in TogetherGreen Innovation Grants to facilitate people-powered conservation action. TogetherGreen Innovation Grants annually provide essential funding that enables environmental groups and their community partners to inspire, equip and engage people to tackle environmental problems and better their communities.
Now in the second year of the program, nearly 90 environmental projects have received Innovation Grants totaling more than $2.5 million to protect land, water, and energy resources nationwide.
Sample 2009 grantees and their projects include:
§ Houston Audubon Society will partner with groups such as the Natural Resources Conservation Service and Texas Forest Service to engage residents in restoring native habitat on Texas’s hurricane-ravaged Bolivar peninsula (TX);
§ Audubon New York will partner with The Nature Conservancy, the Prospect Park Alliance and the Brooklyn Academy of Science and the Environment High School to offer internships and nature-based experiences enabling inner city teens to learn critical life and workplace skills;
§ Palouse Audubon Society will partner with the University of Idaho Women in Science, Idaho Fish and Game, and Palouse Clearwater Environmental Institute to transform land neighboring a wastewater treatment plant into a wildlife park (Moscow, ID);
§ Los Angeles Audubon Society will partner with Susan Miller Dorsey High School, Leo Politi Elementary School,and the environmental firm, Newfields, to put teens on the front line of coastal sage scrub restoration (Los Angeles, CA);
§ Montana Audubon will work with the Western Sustainability Exchange, Yellowstone River Parks Association, and Billings West High School to help educate consumers about the importance of selecting environmentally friendly beef that has been produced by ranchers who protect habitat on their properties (Billings and Helena MT)
A complete list of all 48 grants is available at www.togethergreen.org/grants.
“TogetherGreen Innovation Grants offer tremendous opportunities for environmental groups to flex their creative muscles in tackling conservation issues and building a broader, more active constituency,” said Audubon President John Flicker. “We believe this second round of funding will continue to jump start conservation success by broadening the ranks of those involved and providing support that will allow measurable results to take root.”
The 2009 Innovation Grant recipients were selected from scores of applicants across America. Funds were awarded to local Chapters or programs of Audubon’s large national network – each working in partnership with one or more outside groups. Recipients were chosen for innovation and effectiveness of projects designed to contribute to significant gains in habitat, water, and energy conservation. Many projects will work with inner-city audiences and those previously underserved or not engaged with the environmental community.
“It’s hard to inspire kids to get involved with natural resources just through the classroom, so our work with Audubon will help spark the flame so they can get their hands dirty and learn how to really tackle some real-life problems out in the field,” said Dr. Diana Doan-Crider, Research Associate, Texas A&M University, who is partnering with Audubon Texas to offer environmental internships to underrepresented ethnic groups throughout the state. “There’s nothing like a live animal or a beautiful landscape to trigger a young person’s imagination.”
Selected 2009 proposals will receive grants ranging from $5,000 - $80,000. The grants are proving especially important as non-profit groups weather the financial recession. The 2008 grant recipients leveraged an estimated $4.5 million in additional matching and in-kind support that allowed them to broaden their scope and deliver tremendous conservation potential.
“Generating one green watt of energy where it is being used will save the emissions produced by coal generation of three watts," said Bob Barnhill, President, Sonoita Crossroads Community Forum, who is partnering with Appleton-Whittell Research Ranch to reduce carbon emissions in rural communities. “We can educate our residents in conservation of resources as well as our connection to the earth “
Since launching TogetherGreen in March 2008, the five-year alliance between Audubon and Toyota has provided leadership training, conservation education and outreach, volunteer events, and grant funding to generate impressive new results. Success stories from 2008 Innovation Grants projects helped inspire a new state law requiring high-rises in Minnesota to turn off unnecessary lighting every year during spring and fall migrations; planted over 68,000 trees planted and restored more than 325 acres of land including grasslands in Missouri and Pennsylvania, wetlands in California, and forests in Vermont; reached over 6,000 people with one third of the projects targeting people of color and more than half reaching low-income communities. The progress represents crucial steps in addressing big problems – from habitat degradation to wasteful consumption – that can be solved only through concerted, long-term conservation action.
Audubon Chapters, programs, Centers, sanctuaries and even independent Audubon groups interested in receiving funding for creative, collaborative environmental projects are encouraged to apply for a 2010 TogetherGreen Innovation Grant. Applications will be available online beginning in winter 2010 at www.togethergreen.org/grants.
About Audubon
Now in its second century, Audubon connects people with birds, nature and the environment that supports us all. Our national network of community-based nature centers, chapters, scientific, education, and advocacy programs engages millions of people from all walks of life in conservation action to protect and restore the natural world. Visit Audubon online at www.audubon.org.
About Toyota
Toyota (NYSE: TM) established operations in the United States in 1957 and currently operates 10 manufacturing plants. Toyota is committed to being a good corporate citizen in the communities where it does business and believes in supporting programs with long-term sustainable results. Toyota supports numerous organizations across the country, focusing on education, the environment and safety. Since 1991, Toyota has contributed more than $464 million to philanthropic programs in the U.S. For more information on Toyota's commitment to improving communities nationwide, visit www.toyota.com/community.
Now in the second year of the program, nearly 90 environmental projects have received Innovation Grants totaling more than $2.5 million to protect land, water, and energy resources nationwide.
Sample 2009 grantees and their projects include:
§ Houston Audubon Society will partner with groups such as the Natural Resources Conservation Service and Texas Forest Service to engage residents in restoring native habitat on Texas’s hurricane-ravaged Bolivar peninsula (TX);
§ Audubon New York will partner with The Nature Conservancy, the Prospect Park Alliance and the Brooklyn Academy of Science and the Environment High School to offer internships and nature-based experiences enabling inner city teens to learn critical life and workplace skills;
§ Palouse Audubon Society will partner with the University of Idaho Women in Science, Idaho Fish and Game, and Palouse Clearwater Environmental Institute to transform land neighboring a wastewater treatment plant into a wildlife park (Moscow, ID);
§ Los Angeles Audubon Society will partner with Susan Miller Dorsey High School, Leo Politi Elementary School,and the environmental firm, Newfields, to put teens on the front line of coastal sage scrub restoration (Los Angeles, CA);
§ Montana Audubon will work with the Western Sustainability Exchange, Yellowstone River Parks Association, and Billings West High School to help educate consumers about the importance of selecting environmentally friendly beef that has been produced by ranchers who protect habitat on their properties (Billings and Helena MT)
A complete list of all 48 grants is available at www.togethergreen.org/grants.
“TogetherGreen Innovation Grants offer tremendous opportunities for environmental groups to flex their creative muscles in tackling conservation issues and building a broader, more active constituency,” said Audubon President John Flicker. “We believe this second round of funding will continue to jump start conservation success by broadening the ranks of those involved and providing support that will allow measurable results to take root.”
The 2009 Innovation Grant recipients were selected from scores of applicants across America. Funds were awarded to local Chapters or programs of Audubon’s large national network – each working in partnership with one or more outside groups. Recipients were chosen for innovation and effectiveness of projects designed to contribute to significant gains in habitat, water, and energy conservation. Many projects will work with inner-city audiences and those previously underserved or not engaged with the environmental community.
“It’s hard to inspire kids to get involved with natural resources just through the classroom, so our work with Audubon will help spark the flame so they can get their hands dirty and learn how to really tackle some real-life problems out in the field,” said Dr. Diana Doan-Crider, Research Associate, Texas A&M University, who is partnering with Audubon Texas to offer environmental internships to underrepresented ethnic groups throughout the state. “There’s nothing like a live animal or a beautiful landscape to trigger a young person’s imagination.”
Selected 2009 proposals will receive grants ranging from $5,000 - $80,000. The grants are proving especially important as non-profit groups weather the financial recession. The 2008 grant recipients leveraged an estimated $4.5 million in additional matching and in-kind support that allowed them to broaden their scope and deliver tremendous conservation potential.
“Generating one green watt of energy where it is being used will save the emissions produced by coal generation of three watts," said Bob Barnhill, President, Sonoita Crossroads Community Forum, who is partnering with Appleton-Whittell Research Ranch to reduce carbon emissions in rural communities. “We can educate our residents in conservation of resources as well as our connection to the earth “
Since launching TogetherGreen in March 2008, the five-year alliance between Audubon and Toyota has provided leadership training, conservation education and outreach, volunteer events, and grant funding to generate impressive new results. Success stories from 2008 Innovation Grants projects helped inspire a new state law requiring high-rises in Minnesota to turn off unnecessary lighting every year during spring and fall migrations; planted over 68,000 trees planted and restored more than 325 acres of land including grasslands in Missouri and Pennsylvania, wetlands in California, and forests in Vermont; reached over 6,000 people with one third of the projects targeting people of color and more than half reaching low-income communities. The progress represents crucial steps in addressing big problems – from habitat degradation to wasteful consumption – that can be solved only through concerted, long-term conservation action.
Audubon Chapters, programs, Centers, sanctuaries and even independent Audubon groups interested in receiving funding for creative, collaborative environmental projects are encouraged to apply for a 2010 TogetherGreen Innovation Grant. Applications will be available online beginning in winter 2010 at www.togethergreen.org/grants.
About Audubon
Now in its second century, Audubon connects people with birds, nature and the environment that supports us all. Our national network of community-based nature centers, chapters, scientific, education, and advocacy programs engages millions of people from all walks of life in conservation action to protect and restore the natural world. Visit Audubon online at www.audubon.org.
About Toyota
Toyota (NYSE: TM) established operations in the United States in 1957 and currently operates 10 manufacturing plants. Toyota is committed to being a good corporate citizen in the communities where it does business and believes in supporting programs with long-term sustainable results. Toyota supports numerous organizations across the country, focusing on education, the environment and safety. Since 1991, Toyota has contributed more than $464 million to philanthropic programs in the U.S. For more information on Toyota's commitment to improving communities nationwide, visit www.toyota.com/community.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)